We ALREADY PAY FOR THE UNINSURED. Obamacare simply brings it into the light and makes everyone contribute something towards the cost that WE ALREADY INCUR but is currently hidden within our incredibly high cost/ low value insurance premiums.

And it's not possible to do the ICW because it hasn't been dredged in forever. And that would be another socialized government subsidy.

We ALREADY PAY FOR THE UNINSURED. Obamacare simply brings it into the light and makes everyone contribute something towards the cost that WE ALREADY INCUR but is currently hidden within our incredibly high cost/ low value insurance premiums.

And it's not possible to do the ICW because it hasn't been dredged in forever. And that would be another socialized government subsidy.

LOL! Nice one. I suppose we should privatize dredging and everything else the Corps of Engineers does too. Lets just defund them tell they can no longer function properly and then say "see, big government doesn't work, free enterprise is the answer", like they did to every other government funded program worth having.

Our $3,000/month cruising budget hinged on health care costs. With pre-existing conditions, we could not have afforded to cruise and pay $1,200+/month for health care. Risking going without was not an option.

With Obamacare now a certainty, a cruising couple making less than $50,000/year from any form of income (no means testing!) will not pay more than 9.5% of income for health insurance ($395/month!)

Whether we like or don't like Obamacare, the economic reality for us, is that retiring and cruising is now possible and I'm wondering if it has had the same effect on anyone else??

I wondered how all this started so had to go back to the begainning.

Are we saying that a US cruiser living off savings, i.e. no income, would have free health care under Obamacare?

The unknowns under this whole thing just seem huge.

__________________
jobless, houseless, clueless, living on a boat and cruising around somewhere

Are we saying that a US cruiser living off savings, i.e. no income, would have free health care under Obamacare?

No--under Obamacare the free healthcare for people with no income is still provided under Medicaid. To be eligible for Medicaid you need to have practically no assets (it may vary somewhat from state to state.) In other words, you need to spend your savings down to nothing first. I believe this test may also include non-liquid assets like your boat. I think the eligibility thresholds may rise to some extent under Obamacare.

__________________
... He knows the chart is not the sea.
-- Philip Booth, Chart 1203

No--under Obamacare the free healthcare for people with no income is still provided under Medicaid. To be eligible for Medicaid you need to have practically no assets (it may vary somewhat from state to state.) In other words, you need to spend your savings down to nothing first. I believe this test may also include non-liquid assets like your boat. I think the eligibility thresholds may rise to some extent under Obamacare.

So the income thing means nothing! Now earlier on the thread there was the no insurance pentaly discussion; if living off savings and not having to file a tax return, how are they going to do the pentaly (a tax according to the Court).

I'm not trying to play the system or start some new flaming verison of the topic, I just don't understand from this thraed and my research how this whole mess is going to play out!

__________________
jobless, houseless, clueless, living on a boat and cruising around somewhere

The principal benefit of Obamacare to cruisers younger than 65 is that it makes it possible and affordable to buy private health insurance, even with chronic or pre-existing conditions. Until Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014, those people lucky enough to have jobs with a health insurance benefit had to hold on to them to avoid losing health insurance. If people without benefits got sick they were forced to spend down their assets until they became eligible for Medicaid. This allows people more flexibility to choose to quit their jobs, whether to start a private business or to go cruising or whatever.

__________________
... He knows the chart is not the sea.
-- Philip Booth, Chart 1203

Yes, it's my understanding that the new system essentially begins to break the link between employment and health insurance. This is something that we should have done long ago. It (that link) is an inefficient anachronism that dates back to the Second World War, when employers in the U.S. first started offering health insurance to attract scarce workers.

The net result is that it will be easier to start your own business, take a new job, or take a self-financed hiatus and live on your savings for a while. Starting in 2014, you should be able to buy your own (private) health insurance from a government exchange (not from your former employer's plan) at reasonable, market-based prices.

Of course, the downside is that those who take a self-financed cruising hiatus will have to spend so many hours over cocktails listening to other, uninformed cruisers, huffing and blowing about the evils of Obamacare!

Location: from Houston, TX; currently berthed in Barcelona, headed west

Boat: Amel SM 53 - BeBe

Posts: 946

Re: Obamacare = early retirement anyone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

I wondered how all this started so had to go back to the begainning.

Are we saying that a US cruiser living off savings, i.e. no income, would have free health care under Obamacare?

The unknowns under this whole thing just seem huge.

Uhh...NO! My personal example: Have virtually zero income and living off savings; too young for Medicare; have assets so do not qualify for Medicaid.

Under Obamacare I will be forced to purchase healthcare insurance or face a tax penalty. The last healthcare insurance quote I obtained was 2 years ago and was in the range of $2,000 per month -- with a $10,000 deductible. So I would pay the first 10k before insurance kicked in a penny; and I would also pay 24k for that wonderful insurance. Obviously I am not doing that. The tax penalty under Obamacare for not purchasing insurance has been published as being anywhere from $600 per year up to $6,000 per year, depending on who is writing the article. Assuming the higher figure is the outside limit of tax penalty for not purchasing insurance, I will be better off to pay the 6k penalty and go uninsured. Unless something catastrophic happens and then I would be screwed.

We cruise full-time and visit the USA only about 1 month per year. Any insurance purchased to meet the Obamacare requirements to avoid tax penalty would not cover any medical expenses outside the USA. Really great plan we will have, isn't it. All because so many people have heard horror stories about socialized medicine and universal health care in other countries and insisted that we not have a public health care system. So stupid. So very stupid. We have seen how well public health care systems work in other countries. All the USA is doing is putting even more power into the hands of the insurance companies.

I cannot believe, that any rational person, with the common sense God gave sun warmed grass, could possibly believe, that a government, that has ruined every enterprise it has set out to manage, including its own finances, will fix health care. The degree of disconnect from reality simply boggles my mind....

.... We cannot support the monolithic bureaucracies we pay for now, with borrowed money, no less.....

I think the elements of the new Paradigm that will affect the cruising community are what I'd like to see discussed here. The reporting requirements of this new system could pose issues with sailors. Not so much the guys who stay local. I've heard about portability issues, that your health care records and services will be in one state only. That it will be illegal to purchase alternative insurance without a penalty. That there will be no coverage outside the U.S. and a host of other complications that restrict movement. Anyone got an angle on this stuff ?

I agree with your post. I am going cruising and leaving this week. I keep thinking of other various (mostly government) hurdles I have to jump over. It seems to me that as cruisers we do well to move to self reliance, and away from government support.... Especially when the nation is already struggling with debt that may well threaten its very existence in its current form.

I agree with your post. I am going cruising and leaving this week. I keep thinking of other various (mostly government) hurdles I have to jump over. It seems to me that as cruisers we do well to move to self reliance, and away from government support.... Especially when the nation is already struggling with debt that may well threaten its very existence in its current form.

Maybe it is just me.

Your so right on.

I think I'll go cruising, just as soon as I'm able. Let the politicians figure it out.

I'm sorry for anyone who will be left. I must do what is the best for me.

I have two meds I take. Checking today with my local Canadian Walmart pharmacy and a Walmart pharmacy in Tampa to see if I could get my prescription transferred, was I in for a shock!

For the identical drugs at Walmart Pharmacy, one is 5 times as expensive, and the other 3 times! I just about fell out of my chair.

I truly was shocked that a drug I pay 61.56 here, costs 284.00 there. Same drug, same company, coming out of I assume the same plant. The company is not even a US company... it is a European one. If this is any indication of the rest of the existing healthcare system, one has to wonder why?

Just in case anyone thinks that there are taxpayer dollars involved here in Canada, they are not. I don't carry supplemental insurance up here, so that is my out of pocket cost, the same that is charged to insurance companies for those who have a drug plan. Pure private enterprise in both countries, but what a difference in costs!!

__________________If your attitude resembles the south end of a bull heading north, it's time to turn around.

As for the government vs private debate, one thing to keep in mind is that private insurance companies are not in the business to keep health care costs down. They're in the business to earn profit.

And if the current system of $20 Tylenol pills suits their current profit system then don't expect any help from their end on a solution. All Aetna cares about is if they pay $16 per pill while their competitors pay $18.

And if customers feel like they have to go with insurance or pay $100 per pill, well that's all the better for them too.